Morphology and anatomy of inflorescence and inflorescence axis in Paepalanthus sect. Diphyomene Ruhland (Eriocaulaceae, Poales) and its taxonomic implications

Paepalanthus sect. Diphyomene has inflorescences arranged in umbels. The underlying bauplan seems however to be more complex and composed of several distinct subunits. Despite appearing superficially very similar, the morphology and anatomy of the inflorescences can supply useful information for the understanding of the phylogeny and taxonomy of the group. Inflorescences of Paepalanthus erectifolius, Paepalanthus flaccidus, Paepalanthus giganteus, and Paepalanthus polycladus were analyzed in regard to branching pattern and anatomy. In P. erectifolius, P. giganteus and P. polycladus the structure is a tribotryum, with terminal dibotryum, and with pherophylls bearing lateral dibotrya. In P. flaccidus, the inflorescence is a pleiobotryum, with terminal subunit, and without pherophylls. Secondary inflorescences may occur in all species without regular pattern. Especially when grown in sites without a pronounced seasonality, the distinction between enrichment zone (part of the same inflorescence) and new inflorescences may be obscured. The main anatomical features supplying diagnostic and phylogenetic information are as follows: (a) in the elongated axis, the thickness of the epidermal cell walls and the cortex size; (b) in the bracts, the quantity of parenchyma cells (c) in the scapes, the shape and the presence of a pith tissue. Therefore, P. sect. Diphyomene can be divided in two groups; group A is represented by P. erectifolius, P. giganteus and P. polycladus, and group B is represented by P. flaccidus. The differentiation is based in both, inflorescence structure and anatomy. Group A presents a life cycle and anatomical features similar to species of Actinocephalus. Molecular trees also point that these two groups are closely related. However, inflorescence morphology and blooming sequence are different. Species of group B present an inflorescence structure and anatomical features shared with many genera and species in Eriocaulaceae. The available molecular and morphology based phylogenies still do not allow a precise allocation of the group in the bulk of basal species of Paepalanthus collocated in P. sect. Variabiles. The characters described and used here supply however important information towards this goal. (C) 2009 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

The modularity of seed dispersal: differences in structure and robustness between bat- and bird-fruit networks

In networks of plant-animal mutualisms, different animal groups interact preferentially with different plants, thus forming distinct modules responsible for different parts of the service. However, what we currently know about seed dispersal networks is based only on birds. Therefore, we wished to fill this gap by studying bat-fruit networks and testing how they differ from bird-fruit networks. As dietary overlap of Neotropical bats and birds is low, they should form distinct mutualistic modules within local networks. Furthermore, since frugivory evolved only once among Neotropical bats, but several times independently among Neotropical birds, greater dietary overlap is expected among bats, and thus connectance and nestedness should be higher in bat-fruit networks. If bat-fruit networks have higher nestedness and connectance, they should be more robust to extinctions. We analyzed 1 mixed network of both bats and birds and 20 networks that consisted exclusively of either bats (11) or birds (9). As expected, the structure of the mixed network was both modular (M = 0.45) and nested (NODF = 0.31); one module contained only birds and two only bats. In 20 datasets with only one disperser group, bat-fruit networks (NODF = 0.53 +/- A 0.09, C = 0.30 +/- A 0.11) were more nested and had a higher connectance than bird-fruit networks (NODF = 0.42 +/- A 0.07, C = 0.22 +/- A 0.09). Unexpectedly, robustness to extinction of animal species was higher in bird-fruit networks (R = 0.60 +/- A 0.13) than in bat-fruit networks (R = 0.54 +/- A 0.09), and differences were explained mainly by species richness. These findings suggest that a modular structure also occurs in seed dispersal networks, similar to pollination networks. The higher nestedness and connectance observed in bat-fruit networks compared with bird-fruit networks may be explained by the monophyletic evolution of frugivory in Neotropical bats, among which the diets of specialists seem to have evolved from the pool of fruits consumed by generalists.